You are on page 1of 1

Alviola v CA & Tinagans

Victoria Tinagan owns a land, allowed Spouses Alviola to build on said land a store and copra dryer to engage in the
business of buying and selling copras. Victoria died, now the respondent Tinagans own the land. Now they want
the Alviolas to get out of said land; Alviolas refused.

So the Tinagans filed a case for recovery of possession against the Alviolas where the RTC held:

a) Tinagans as the absolute owners of the land in question including the portion claimed and occupied by
Alviolas;

b) Ordering Editha Alviola and her husband Porfirio Alviola to peacefully vacate and to surrender the
possession of the premises in question to Tinagans; Alviolas may remove their store and dryer on the
premises without injury and prejudice to the plaintiffs;

Issue: May article 448 be applied?

Held: Yes, article 448 should be applied, but in this case, it cannot be applied.

First: bad faith on the part of land owner + bad faith on the part of builder = good faith on both of them (article 453
of the Civil Code)

The Court said:

There was bad faith on the part of the petitioners when they constructed the copra dryer and store on the
disputed portions since they were fully aware that the parcels of land belonged to Victoria Tinagan. And,
there was likewise bad faith on the part of the private respondents, having knowledge of the arrangement
between petitioners and Victoria Tinagan relative to the construction of the copra dryer and store. Thus,
for purposes of indemnity, Article 448 of the New Civil Code should be applied.

So, why is article 448 not applicable in this case?

The Court said:

However, the copra dryer and the store, as determined by the trial court and respondent court, are
transferable in nature. Thus, it would not fall within the coverage of Article 448. As the noted civil law
authority, Senator Arturo Tolentino, aptly explains: To fall within the provision of this Article, the
construction must be of permanent character, attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuity; but if it is of
a transitory character or is transferable, there is no accession, and the builder must remove the
construction.

Then what is the proper remedy?

The proper remedy of the landowner is an action to eject the builder from the land.

The Tinagans action for recovery of possession was the suitable solution to eject petitioners from the premises. SC
affirms the decision of the RTC

You might also like